EXPERIMENT

SERIAL POSITION
EFFECT

UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF MS. SHREYASI ROY

Submission by: Sachi Sethi

The purpose of this experiment is to examine the serial position effect in memory recall by

investigating how the position of items in a list influences the likelihood of their recall.

HYPOTHESIS

The pattern of recall will be influenced by the serial position effect, such that items presented

at the start of the list (primacy effect) and at the end of the list (recency effect) will have a

stronger likelihood of recall, while items positioned centrally within the list will demonstrate

lower recall rates due to reduced memory retention associated with their intermediate

placement.

INTRODUCTION

The serial position effect refers to how the position of an item in a list influences recall. Items

at the beginning are often remembered better, demonstrating the primacy effect, while those

at the end are also easily recalled, illustrating the recency effect. This phenomenon highlights

the significance of item placement in memory performance, emphasizing that our recall

abilities vary depending on where items appear in a sequence. Its key components include-

THE PRIMACY EFFECT

It’s the tendency to remember the first items in a list because they receive more rehearsal,

which helps transfer them into long-term memory. This phenomenon occurs when items
presented at the beginning of a list are remembered more effectively. This happens because

these items are often transferred to long- term memory through rehearsal and repetition.

THE RECENCY EFFECT

The tendency to remember the last items in a list due to their presence in short-term memory,

making them easier to recall immediately after presentation. This effect involves better recall

for items at the end of a list. These items are still present in short-term memory when

retrieval occurs, making them easier to access immediately after the list is presented.

COGNITIVE BIAS RELATED TO MEMORY

Memory is complex and can be influenced by cognitive biases, which are mental shortcuts

that distort how we remember things. For example, we often feel more confident about

recalling items at the start or end of a list, leading us to think we remember better than we

actually do. These biases show how our thinking can shape our memories and affect their

accuracy.

The serial position effect has been studied by MURDOCK (1962)- which identified both the

primacy and recency effects. and further explored by GLANZER & CUNITZ (1966)- who

examined the impact of delayed recall on these effects.

It was designed to investigate the serial position effect, which explores how we recall items

from a list based on their position—beginning (primacy effect) or end (recency effect). His

study became foundational in understanding memory processes, especially the roles of short-

term and long-term memory.

PROCEDURE

• Participants were presented with word lists that varied in length from 10 to 40 words.

• Words were shown at a rate of either 1 word per second or 1 word every 2 seconds.

• After seeing the entire list, participants had to recall as many words as they could in any

order (free recall).

PARTICIPANTS

• Number: 103 participants

• Demographics: College students Variables

• Independent variables: List length (10, 15, 20, 30, 40 words).

Presentation rate (1 or 2 seconds per word)

• Dependent variable: Probability of recall for each word, based on its position in the list.

Group Breakdown
• Participants were divided into six groups based on different combinations of list length and

presentation rate: Group 10-2: 10 words, 2 seconds per word Group 20-1: 20 words, 1 second

per word

Other groups followed similar combinations (15-2, 30-1, etc.).

Murdock's study demonstrated that participants consistently recalled words from the

beginning (primacy effect) and end (recency effect) of the lists better than those in the

middle. This established the serial position effect and supported the idea that short-term and

long-term memory function as separate stores within the memory system.

Murdock's study on the serial position effect shed light into the very good understanding of

how memory works, especially between short-term and long-term memory.

PRIMACY AND RECENCY EFFECTS:

Murdock found that participants presented a strong ability to recall the first few items of what

appears in a list, which is called the primacy effect. This phenomenon shows that the first few

items on the list were more likely to be transferred into long-term memory as they had more

opportunities for rehearsals. The recency effect, on the other hand, showed that the last few

items were recalled equally well because by the time of recall, they were still around in short-

term memory.

FLAT MIDDLE SECTION (ASYMPTOTE):

The asymptote, that flat middle section of the recall curve, includes items in the middle of the

list that are recalled much less than those at the beginning and end. Presumably, these middle

items received less attention or rehearsal than the first and last items and hence are retained
less well. That the inability to recall such items clearly speaks to a limited capacity of

memory, and the post of the position of an item in a list impact whether it will be recalled.

MEMORY STORES CONNECTION:

Murdock draws clear distinctions between short- and long-term memory from his results. The

recency effect demonstrates how recently presented items were kept in short-term memory,

while the primacy effect demonstrates the carrying over into long-term storage of earlier

items. Such results lend themselves to the theory that different processes are indeed in place

for the encoding and retrieval of memories from these two stores.

STRENGTHS

1. Large Sample Size:

Murdock's study often involved a significant number of participants, enhancing the

reliability of the results. A larger sample size reduces the impact of anomalies and

increases the statistical power of the findings.

2. Varied List Lengths:

By using different list lengths in his experiments, Murdock could assess how the number

of items affected recall. This variability allowed for a more nuanced understanding of

memory performance across different conditions.

3. Presentation Rates:

Murdock manipulated the rates at which items were presented, providing insights into

how presentation speed influences recall. This aspect contributed to a more

short-term and long-term memory processes.

WEAKNESSES

1. Limited Scope (Focus on Unrelated Words):

The study primarily used lists of unrelated words, which may not reflect how people

recall meaningful information in everyday life. This limitation raises questions about the

ecological validity of the findings.

2. Lack of Control Over Individual Differences:

Participants may have had varying levels of cognitive ability, prior knowledge, or

memory strategies, which Murdock did not control for. These individual differences

could influence recall performance, introducing variability that is not accounted for in

the results.

3. Artificial Setting:

Conducting experiments in a laboratory setting may have led to unnatural behavior in

participants. The controlled environment might not accurately replicate real-world

memory tasks, limiting the applicability of the findings.

4. Potential Confounding Variables:

Factors such as distraction, participant anxiety, or familiarity with specific words

could affect performance but were not rigorously controlled. These confounding

variables could skew the results and interpretations.

Due to the reliance on a specific methodology and the use of artificial tasks (like

recalling lists of words), the findings may not be easily generalized to broader

contexts or different populations. This limitation raises concerns about the extent to

which the conclusions can be applied to real-life memory scenarios.

Murdock concluded that memory functioned through separate stores: short-term memory and

long-term memory. The serial position curve points to how these stores interact in relation to

the process of recall, thus making a strong case for the idea of different cognitive

mechanisms. It has important implications in understanding memory processing because it

suggests that strategies for improving memory recall need to be targeted at the different

systems.

THE GLANZER AND CUNITZ (1966)

Investigated how short-term and long-term memory work by looking at the serial position

effect—how the position of an item in a list influences the likelihood of remembering it.

THE TWO EXPERIMENTS:

IMMEDIATE RECALL AND DELAYED RECALL

• Immediate Recall Participants were asked to immediately recall a list of words they just

heard.
• Delayed Recall Participants were asked to recall the same type of word list, but after a short

delay, during which they had to complete a distracting task (counting backward, for

example).

PROCEDURE

• Presentation rate:

In both experiments, participants were given a list of 15 words, presented one at a time. Each

word was shown for a fixed amount of time, usually a few seconds.

• Repetition: The list was presented only once, meaning participants had no opportunity to

rehearse or review the words.

• Delay Conditions: In the delayed recall condition, participants were given a brief distracting

task (like counting backward for 30 seconds) before they could try to recall the words. This

task was designed to prevent them from mentally rehearsing the words and to eliminate short-

term memory effects.

STRENGTHS:

• The study provided strong evidence for the existence of two separate memory systems,

which was a groundbreaking idea at the time.

• The design (immediate vs. delayed recall) effectively tested the distinction between short-

term and long-term memory.

• The study involved a very artificial task (memorizing word lists), which might not reflect

how memory works in real-world situations.

• It focused mostly on verbal memory and didn’t account for other types of memory, such as

visual or procedural memory.

• Individual differences in memory strategies (some people may rehearse more or less) were

not fully explored.

Overall, Glanzer and Cunitz’s study made a significant contribution to our understanding of

memory, supporting the idea of a dual-store model involving both short-term and long-term

memory systems.

RESULTS

PRIMACY EFFECT AND RECENCY EFFECT

• Primacy Effect:

In both experiments, participants tended to remember the first few words in the list very well.

This is called the primacy effect, which is thought to occur because those early words have

more time to be rehearsed and transferred into long-term memory.

In the immediate recall condition, participants also remembered the last few words very well.

This is called the recency effect, as those words were still fresh in their short-term memory

when they were asked to recall them.

• In the delayed recall condition, the recency effect disappeared. The distracting task caused

the last words to fade from short-term memory, making them harder to recall.

Dual Storage Mechanisms Glanzer and Cunitz concluded that memory is supported by

two different storage systems:

Short-term memory (STM): Responsible for holding information briefly. This explains the

recency effect when participants recall words immediately.

Long-term memory (LTM): Responsible for storing information over a longer period. This

explains the primacy effect, where early words had time to be transferred into LTM through

rehearsal. Their study demonstrated that different strategies, like rehearsal, are used to store

information in either short-term or long-term memory.

METHODOLOGY:

SUBJECT DETAILS:

o Date: November 5, 2024

o Name: SS

o Age: 18
 o Gender: FEMALE

MATERIALS REQUIRED:

o List of 30 words

o Writing materials

o Stopwatch

PROCEDURE:

I. The subject was seated comfortably in a quiet room free of distractions.

II. A list of 30 words was read aloud to the subject at a pace of 1 word every 2 seconds

III. After the list was presented, the subject was given a rest period of 60 seconds.

IV. The subject was then asked to recall as many words as possible from the lost and

write them down.

V. The recalled words were recorded and analyzed according to their position on the list

(first third, middle third and last third)

FIRST MIDDLE LAST

1. OCEAN 11. CUP 21. SNOW

2. SPOON 12. BALLOON 22. STONE

3. DOOR 13. GUITAR 23. WINDOW

4. CLOCK 14. TABLE 24. TIGER

5. HAT 15. HOUSE 25. APPLE

6. FLOWER 16. STAR 26. FIRE

7. TREE 17. GRASS 27. BRIDGE

8. LIGHT 18. PLANE 28. BRUSH

9. RIVER 19. BOOK 29. MOUNTAIN

10. CAMERA 20. SUN 30. TRAIN

INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN TO THE SUBJECT

 You will see a list containing 30 different words, each displayed one at a time.

 Focus on remembering as many words as possible.

 Words need not be recalled in any specific order—just remember as many as you

can.

 After the list is complete, you will have a short time to recall and write down all

the words you remember.

 Take your time when recalling

RESULTS:

The number of words recalled by the subject:

SECTION POSITION IN THE LIST WORDS RECALLED

FIRST 1-10 5

MIDDLE 11-20 4

LAST 21-30 6

LIST OF WORDS RECALLED

 FIRST SECTION-

1. OCEAN

2. SPOON

3. HAT

4. LIGHT

5. CAMERA

 MIDDLE SECTION-

1. CUP

2. BALLON

3. GUITAR

4. TABLE
  LAST SECTION

1. SNOW

2. STONE

3. TIGER

4. APPLE

5. BRIDGE

6. BRUSH

PRECAUTIONS:

 The room should be well lit and ventilated.

 Informed consent should be taken before the experiment.

 The subject should ensure the subject has understood the instructions.

 Subject confidentiality should be maintained.

 There should be no external distractions.

 The words should be spoken at an equal interval.

 There should be no communication during the rest period.

 No word should be repeated.

The subject was able to recall a total of 15 words out of the 30 presented. The recall was

distributed across the three sections of the list as follows:

 First Section (Words 1–10): The subject recalled 5 words from this section. This

reflects a relatively strong primacy effect, where words presented at the beginning of

the list have a higher chance of being encoded into long-term memory due to

increased rehearsal time.

 Middle Section (Words 11–20): The subject recalled 4 words from the middle of the

list. This middle section typically shows lower recall due to a lack of advantages from

either the primacy or recency effect. Words in this range are less likely to be rehearsed

extensively and may not be retained as easily in short-term memory.

 Last Section (Words 21–30): The subject recalled 6 words from this section. This

reflects the recency effect, where words presented at the end of the list are likely to

remain in short-term memory due to their recent exposure, making them more readily

accessible during recall.

Overall, the results support the serial position effect, with the participant showing a higher

recall for words from both the beginning and end of the list, and a decrease in recall for

words from the middle section.

results
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
FI R ST SEC TI ON(1 -1 0 ) MI D D L E SEC TI ON(1 1 - L AST SEC TI ON(2 1 -3 0 )
20)

DISCUSSION

The experiment's findings support the widely accepted theory of the serial position effect,

which holds that people are more likely to remember items from a list's beginning (primacy

effect) and end (recency effect), while they are less likely to remember items from the

middle.

The participant in this study showed a clear pattern of recall, remembering more terms from

the first and end parts of the list. There were five words from the first ten (primacy effect),

four from the middle ten (middle section), and six from the final ten (recency effect) out of

the fifteen words that were recalled. This suggests that both the primacy and recency effects

affected the subject's memory, with terms at the beginning receiving more practice and those

at the end staying more accessible because they were presented recently.
The expected decline in memory characteristic of the middle items in a list is evident in the

middle portion (words 11–20), which was recalled the least (only 4 words). These words are

more likely to be forgotten since they do not benefit from the rehearsal time that the earlier

words have or the recency advantage that the later words have. Lower recall rates result from

the middle portion of the list often undergoing the least amount of cognitive processing.

CONCLUSION

The subject's recall data indicates a considerable decline in recollection from the middle of

the list and a stronger retention of words from the beginning and end, the experiment

effectively illustrates the serial position effect. This pattern aligns with the idea that the

primacy and recency effects are important for memory retention and that an item's position in

a list directly affects its likelihood of being recalled.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------